Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that results are limited to 'recent' runs and include status/results, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or how many runs are returned. Vague on what 'recent' means.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and adds only the useful operational context about data freshness. No redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple list tool, annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, and schema exposing pagination parameters, the description covers the core need: what it lists and why you would use it. It does not explicitly route to sm_get_sync_run, but the plural 'list' and 'recent' scope make the intent sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is effectively zero)Skip; the description does not compensate by explaining the required projectId scoping or the meaning of cursor/pageSize. The names are self-explanatory, but an agent still receives no guidance on pagination or required parameters beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('sync runs'), and scope ('recent', 'status and results'). The plural 'runs' plus the distinction from the singular sm_get_sync_run sibling makes the tool's purpose immediately clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'checking data freshness before trusting an analysis' provides a clear operational context for when to call this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sm_get_sync_run or state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.